Red-State Senate Democrats Haven’t Drawn Strong Opponents — Yet

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill doesn’t yet have a high-quality opponent in her 2018 Senate race. She’s not the only Democrat lacking a serious GOP challenger.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Is the GOP going to fail to take advantage of one of the best Senate playing fields in a generation? Last week, the chance that Republicans will enlarge their Senate majority in 2018 took a hit when Republican Rep. Ann Wagner declared that she would not challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri. Wagner was supposed to be a top recruit, and some outlets had even said she would get in the race in July. Instead, she said she would run for re-election to the House. McCaskill remains without a high-profile challenger for now.

Florida’s Bill Nelson, Indiana’s Joe Donnelly, North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin so far don’t have any challengers who have held a notable elected office. That may not last, but it’s not a good sign for Republicans at this point. You’d think that Heitkamp, especially, who won election by just a point in 2012 and is running in a state Trump won by 36 points, would have at least one high-profile opponent.

Democrats have been far more successful at recruiting, despite facing a tougher map. In the only 2018 Senate race taking place in a state that Trump lost and that has a Republican incumbent up for election, Nevada Democratic Rep. Jacky Rosen has already declared that she’s going to oppose Republican Sen. Dean Heller. Rosen may face a primary challenge from Democratic Rep. Dina Titus. In Texas, where Trump won by less than 10 points, Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke is taking on Sen. Ted Cruz. Even Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, who so far has avoided any high-profile challengers, could potentially face Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton in a state Trump won by less than 5 points.

The fact that Democrats are enjoying more success in recruiting is a sign that the 2018 political environment favors Democrats. Elected officials usually don’t like to get into races that they think they’ll lose. And given that the Senate races are tilted toward Republicans already, it suggests that in the House, where every representative is up for election, Democrats will be on the offensive.

Although challenger quality can be overrated in determining election outcomes (i.e., a rising political tide can lift all boats), it has mattered in federal elections. In the House, we know that elected officials have had a much better success rate when it comes to knocking off incumbents than those with less experience. Even controlling for other factors, the FiveThirtyEight Senate election forecasting model, based off of past elections, gives the highest-end officeholders a net 6- to 7-point advantage versus those who have never held elected office.

Higher-end officeholders have a number of advantages over other types of Senate seekers. They tend to have better fundraising networks because they’ve run for office before, which can make the difference in close races. They have higher statewide name identification, which can, at least initially, give them better poll numbers, which itself can lead to better fundraising. Finally, higher-end office seekers tend to have campaign experience and are less likely to make major boneheaded campaign mistakes or have skeletons in their closet.

Still, even if the GOP’s poor recruitment continues, it is unlikely to cost Republicans control of the Senate in 2018. Democrats’ chances of picking up a net gain of at least three seats is probably only a little better than that of pulling an inside straight (about 1 in 10) given the Senate playing field. The most likely outcome ranges from a two-seat Democratic gain to a two-seat Republican gain. But such small differences could make a big difference in governing.

Let’s say Republicans were to lose two Senate seats in 2018. That would give moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine a lot more power and could force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to present more moderate pieces of legislation. If a Supreme Court justice decided to retire, a tighter Senate could also make it more likely that Trump would pick a moderate nominee. That could save Roe v. Wade, for example. Obviously, McConnell and Trump will have more power if Republicans slightly increase their majority.

That’s why it’s important to pay attention to whether better candidates join the fray over the next few months. Although Republicans have struggled so far, there’s still time for top recruits to announce their candidacy. Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner didn’t announce that he was taking on then-Colorado Sen. Mark Udall until March 2014, eight months before Election Day, and had previously said he wouldn’t run against Udall in the 2014 Senate elections. Indeed, three of the Republicans who picked up Democratic seats in the 2014 cycle waited until fall2013 or later to announce their bids.

While it’s certainly possible for one or two candidates to pull a Gardner, most won’t have the ability to quickly fundraise or clear the primary field like he did. (Gardner was already running for re-election in the House, and the political environment was strongly in Republicans’ favor.) They’ll need months to build a campaign war chest and nail down endorsements to distinguish themselves from their primary competition. Moreover, the longer they wait, the less likely it is they’re going to win the seat. The national environment tends to get worse for the White House party the closer we get to a midterm.

If we end the summer without more Republicans declaring for the Senate in red states with Democratic senators, it may mean Republicans won’t be able to take advantage of a good map.